The Objective Standard Blog
The Objective Standard Blog
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Evolutionary Theory and the Global Warming Hypothesis: A World (of Evidence) Apart
A recent story in the New York Times draws attention to recent legislative attempts by creationists to force public schools to “teach the controversy” between evolution and creationism, and between the man-made global warming hypothesis and criticisms of it.
Two recent developments have pushed the creationists to draw parallels between the controversies. First, attempts to enforce the view that evolution is “only a theory” have been struck down on the grounds of church/state separation. (The court noted that no other scientific theory of equal evidential status has been singled out for such demotion.) Second, the recent “ClimateGate” scandal—in which hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia revealed what appears to be evidence of a conspiracy to fudge and suppress data—has raised fresh doubts about the veracity of the climate science behind the recent push to regulate carbon emissions.
On the question of whether doubts about evolution and those about man-made global warming are justified, the Times article reveals a remarkable degree of agreement between the pro- and anti-evolution camps. According to John G. West of the Discovery Institute, which promulgates creationism, “There is a lot of similar dogmatism on this issue. . . . We think analyzing and evaluating scientific evidence is a good thing, whether that is about global warming or evolution.” On the other side, Lawrence M. Krauss, a pro-evolution physicist at Arizona State University, “described the move toward climate-change skepticism as a predictable offshoot of creationism.” Says Krauss:
Wherever there is a battle over evolution now [. . .] there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science—to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism.
Both sides are right to some degree. “Many scientists” agree with both evolutionary theory and the theory of man-made global warming. As the Times summarizes it:
For mainstream scientists, there is no credible challenge to evolutionary theory. They oppose the teaching of alternative views like intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it must be the design of an intelligent being. And there is wide agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activities are probably driving it.
But suppose for the moment that every scientist on the planet expressed belief in both theories. Suppose further that as laymen, we have no way of assessing all of the technical details of each theory. Could we nevertheless identify differences between the quality of the evidence scientists appeal to in support of their theories?
Even moderately educated adults know (or could readily learn) that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is based on a vast array of evidence accumulated over more than a century and a half of investigation. It integrates observations from a variety of disparate scientific disciplines: Linnaeus’ taxonomy of the species, Lyle’s geology, Malthus’ population dynamics, as well as Darwin’s own collection of data from biogeography, paleontology, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, and common sense observations about the success of dog breeders. And following Darwin’s own work, which integrated all of that, other scientists discovered further evidence in support of his theory—evidence such as later 20th-century discoveries in biochemistry that accounted for the mechanism by which evolved traits are passed on to descendents.
Compare such evidence to the evidence supporting the hypothesis of man-made global warming. A simple first pass indicates that the theory is relatively young compared to Darwin’s: Scientists have only considered it seriously for the last thirty years. Even now, the data alleged to support the theory is poor compared to the plethora of evidence in support of evolution. The most direct data scientists have about temperature extends back only about 100 years; the rest of their evidence is itself a product of inference based on ice cores and tree rings. And scientists do not yet clearly understand the role of CO2 as a factor contributing to temperature change. Many say there is evidence suggesting that other factors, such as sunspots, may play a bigger role.
Whatever the merits of the hypothesis of man-made global warming, it cannot claim the evidential virtues of the theory of evolution. Evolution by natural selection is the central integrating principle of the entire field of biology. As evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky put it, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” The hypothesis of man-made global warming is far from central to climate science, and could be dispensed with without altering our understanding of other climate principles.
Even leaving aside questions about the comparative quality and comprehensiveness of the evidence behind each theory, there is an additional factor that could lead us rationally to doubt one theory but not the other: the factor of ideological and political motivation.
Acceptance of evolutionary theory does not serve any ordinary or obvious political agenda. Each side of the political spectrum has attempted to lay claim to the theory, whether Herbert Spencer’s social Darwinist argument for laissez-faire, or Peter Singer’s invocation of a “Darwinian Left.”
Contrast this with man-made global warming hypothesis—a thesis advanced after our culture had been steeped for decades in environmentalist and anti-capitalist ideology. Long before scientists considered the effect of carbon dioxide on temperature and human well-being, intellectuals had convinced themselves (and others) that capitalism is evil and that human material progress is an arrogant intrusion in nature. That a scientific theory consonant with this view is now being asserted—and that the scientists pushing the theory are funded by cultural and governmental institutions insistent upon further entrenching the environmentalist and anti-capitalist ideology—could easily appear too convenient to be a coincidence.
Even if the global warming hypothesis turns out to be true, given the comparative quality of evidence currently in support of it and the legitimate concern regarding motivations behind the theory, there are plenty of rational grounds to doubt the veracity of its advocates. This stands in stark contrast with evolutionary theory.
It is no surprise that creationists would exploit legitimate doubts about the hypothesis that human activity is causing global warming to cast doubt on completely legitimate science: As advocates of faith, they are critical of the scientific method as such. But it is also not surprising that die-hard defenders of the hypothesis would attempt to smear all critics of their view as akin in motivation to creationists: They have already attempted the same smear job by labeling critics of global warming as “denialists,” likening them to Holocaust deniers—as if the certainty of man-made global warming were on par with the occurrence of the Holocaust.
Both of these groups are on the non-objective premise of finding ways to criticize everything believed by an opposing group. The consensus of modern scientists, in their view, is either all up for doubt or all sacrosanct. But the hallmark of objectivity in this context is the ability to evaluate as true or false different components of a theory or hypothesis. Considering the genuine difference in the evidential status between evolutionary theory and the man-made global warming hypothesis, all interested parties should insist on such objectivity.
Labels: Environmentalism, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Spring Issue of TOS
The print edition of the Spring issue of TOS is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning March 20; and the Kindle edition will be delivered to Kindle subscribers on March 30. For promotional purposes, we are making Steve Simpson’s article “Citizens United and the Battle for Free Speech in America” available on our website early and for free.
The contents of the Spring issue are:
ARTICLES
Citizens United and the Battle for Free Speech in America by Steve Simpson
Government-Run Health Care vs. the Hippocratic Oath
by Paul HsiehThe Virtue of Treating People Like Animals: Why Human Health Care Should Mirror Veterinary Health Care
by Sarah GelbergThe Practicality of Private Waterways
by J. Brian Phillips and Alan GermaniNorman Borlaug: The Man Who Taught People To Feed Themselves
by Audra HilseMaking Life Meaningful: Living Purposefully
by Craig BiddleBOOKS REVIEWED
Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Reviewed by Heike LarsonWinning the Unwinnable War edited by Elan Journo
Reviewed by Grant W. JonesWhy Are Jews Liberals? by Norman Podhoretz
Reviewed by Gideon ReichCapitalism Unbound by Andrew Bernstein
Reviewed by Ari ArmstrongEssays on Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged edited by Robert Mayhew
Reviewed by Daniel WahlThe Sparrowhawk Series by Edward Cline
Reviewed by Dina Schein FedermanBorn to Run by Christopher McDougall
Reviewed by Daniel WahlYour Inner Fish by Neil Shubin
Reviewed by David H. MirmanNewton and the Counterfeiter by Thomas Levenson
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl
If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, why not do so today? You can subscribe online or by calling 800-423-6151.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Foreign Policy and War, Healthcare, History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology, The Arts
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics
Penguin has announced that July 6, 2010 is the official release date for David Harriman’s book, The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics.
Here’s the blurb from the back cover:
A groundbreaking solution to the problem of induction, based on Ayn Rand’s theory of concepts
Inspired by and expanding on a series of lectures by Leonard Peikoff, David Harriman presents a fascinating answer to the problem of induction—that is, the epistemological question of how we know the truth of inductive generalizations.
Ayn Rand presented her revolutionary theory of concepts in her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. As Dr. Peikoff subsequently explored inductive reasoning, he sought out David Harriman, a physicist who has taught philosophy, for his expert knowledge of the scientific discovery process.
Here, Harriman presents the result of collaboration between scientist and philosopher. Beginning with a detailed discussion of the role of mathematics and experiment in validating generalizations in physics—looking closely at the reasoning of scientists such as Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Lavoisier, and Maxwell—Harriman skillfully identifies the method by which we discover laws of nature. Refuting the skepticism that is epidemic in contemporary philosophy of science, Harriman offers demonstrable evidence of the power of reason. He then argues that philosophy itself is an inductive science—the science that teaches the scientist how to be scientific.
You can see the Table of Contents and First Pages at Falling Apple Science Institute, and you can preorder the book at Amazon.com. For a preview of Harriman’s work on this subject, see his TOS articles:
- Enlightenment Science and its Fall
- The 19th-Century Atomic War
- Induction and Experimental Method
- Isaac Newton: Discoverer of Universal Laws
- Proof of the Atomic Theory
- Errors in Inductive Reasoning
Labels: Announcements, Philosophy, Science and Technology
Monday, January 25, 2010
The Real Goal of the Green Climate Crusade
An event announcement from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights:A talk at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
Who: Dr. Keith Lockitch, fellow focusing on science and environmentalism at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
What: A talk examining the drastic claims put forth by environmentalists, and a critical look at their fundamental goal
Where: Angell Hall, Auditorium C, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI 48105
When: Wednesday, February 3, 2010, at 7:30 p.m.
Description: Environmentalists claim that our use of carbon-based energy is altering the climate, making us more vulnerable to climate disasters. Human survival, they insist, requires the immediate abandonment of fossil fuels in favor of carbon-free sources. So why do environmentalist groups vehemently oppose projects involving every alternative form of energy ever proposed to replace fossil fuels--including wind farms and solar power plants? And why do they ignore the dramatic degree to which industrial development under capitalism has reduced the risk of harm from severe climate events? Before we rush headlong into drastic climate policies and energy rationing, a critical examination of these policies is urgently needed. Dr. Lockitch will address these important issues and answer audience questions.
Admission: FREE. Open to students and the public.
Bio: Dr. Keith Lockitch is a fellow focusing on science and environmentalism at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He teaches writing courses for the Objectivist Academic Center’s undergraduate program and a history of physics course for the graduate program. His writings have appeared in publications such as the Orange County Register, San Francisco Chronicle, Australia’s Herald Sun and the Canberra Times, and USA Today magazine. Dr. Lockitch has been a frequent guest on radio shows such as The Thom Hartmann Program. Prior to joining ARI in 2003, Dr. Lockitch was a postdoctoral researcher in physics at the University of Illinois and at Pennsylvania State University. He is an alumnus of the Objectivist Graduate Center.
More information: Please e-mail Adam Gaglio, president of the University of Michigan Students of Objectivism, at agaglio@umich.edu.
Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI. ARI does not necessarily endorse the content of the lectures and sessions offered.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Environmentalism, Events, Individual Rights and Law, Science and Technology
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Missile Gap and the Morality Gap
In my post about the contradiction between the technological sophistication of the Burj Dubai and the primitive superstition on display in the mosque at its pinnacle, I argued that this disparity is another example of the general disparity in progress between science and morality. But what accounts for this gap?
Two reviews in last week’s New York Times Book Review provide a clue.
The first, commenting on the first Soviet test of an atomic bomb in 1949, speaks of the nuclear arms race with the United States that followed:
Those years are some of the most complicated in American history. Great successes, like the Marshall Plan, combined with one monumental failure: the beginning of a catastrophically unwise arms race. Somehow, rational decision was piled upon rational decision to create something utterly irrational. Four decades later, two countries with few disputes over land had lavished trillions of dollars and rubles on world-destroying weapons.The second, also a story of postwar technological intrigue, comments on how Werner von Braun, onetime architect of the Nazi V-2 program, could have acquired respectability for his work on the U.S. space program:
[In the author’s view,] von Braun escaped from the sphere of moral judgment with the help of the American authorities, who wanted to employ him in the missile and space programs. [The author’s] aim is to make him answerable, if only posthumously, for what he did. And he has a more general point to make, too: scientists and engineers, by claiming to be "apolitical," often escape being held to account for what they help to produce. In other words, von Braun is an egregious example of a more general phenomenon.What is the "more general phenomenon" here, and what does it have to do with the passage from the first review?
The first passage characterizes Soviet and American military decisions as equally rational. But why would anyone describe the actions of a brutal totalitarian regime as equal in rationality to those of the government of a free nation? One could portray Soviet decisions as "rational" only by judging their effectiveness as a means to an end, without judging the rationality of the end itself. That is, one could consider the Soviet construction of a bomb to be a "rational" means of defending the regime against foreign threats only by leaving aside the question of whether it is rational for an oppressive regime to maintain its grip on power in the first place.
The view that rationality judges only of means, not of ends, is the "general phenomenon" of which von Braun and too many other scientists are guilty. These scientists assume that they need not evaluate the ends for which their discoveries and creations are used, and that scientific rationality has nothing to contribute to the evaluation of these ends. Science, they think, is "value free," and the ends of action can only be judged non-scientifically.
This "general phenomemon" is a contemporary version of a view made famous by the British philosopher, David Hume, who wrote in his Treatise of Human Nature, "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." But is it not obvious that to enslave a whole society and threaten with death the rest of the world is irrational? By contrast, is it not obvious that some of von Braun's endeavors—his assistance in the development of the U.S. space program, and the life-giving technology it spawned—were rational while his support of the Nazis was not?
Not according to Hume. Our evaluation that the threat of mass death is evil and the protection of innocent life is good may seem to be a basic, uncontestable value judgment, but Hume claims that only sentiment supports it. This view, that moral value judgments bottom out in subjective preferences, wrought havoc across the landscape of 20th-century value theory, in which a variety of neo-Humeans propounded versions of "non-cognitivism" about ethics, to the point where it became a commonplace among college freshmen that all values are relative.
It is with some relief that non-cognitivism in value theory is sounding a modest retreat in academia. The philosophic vacuum resulting from complete value subjectivism had to be filled, eventually. New theories, some drawing on the wisdom of the ancients, purport that value can be a natural property like any other. Ayn Rand was ahead of her time when she advanced a version of this view in Atlas Shrugged, contending that what is good for a living organism is simply what furthers its distinctive form of life.
But our culture has yet to catch up with any of this philosophic insight. Journalists regard Soviet and American military decisions as equally "rational," and scientists regard morality as irrelevant to judging the ends of their research. This is why our moral progress has not kept pace with our scientific progress. Few people have come to realize that morality is a science and that the ends of human action can be rationally assessed on the basis of their life-based objective value.
Images: Wikimedia Commons (1, 2)
Labels: History, Philosophy, Science and Technology
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Towering Contradiction
The beginning of the new year and decade bore witness to the opening of the world's newest tallest building: the Burj Dubai in the UAE. Like many other commentators, Landon Thomas of the New York Times noted the dire economic situation Dubai faces as it celebrates this moment of triumph:All the same, the tower’s success by no means signals a recovery in Dubai's beaten-down real estate market, where prices have collapsed by as much as 50 percent and many developers are having trouble finding occupants for their buildings.Unlike other commentary, Thomas goes further in noting paradoxes surrounding the spectacle of the opening:
With its mix of nightclubs, mosques, luxury suites and boardrooms, the Burj is an almost perfect representation of Dubai’s own complexities and contradictions. It will have the world’s first Armani hotel; the world’s highest swimming pool, on the 76th floor; the highest observation deck, on the 124th floor; and the highest mosque, on the 158th floor.When humanity achieves the technical feat of erecting a 2,717-foot skyscraper in the desert and places a mosque on one of its highest floors, one is tempted to reflect on the builders’ hierarchy of values, in this case as expressed by the literal, physical hierarchy of the superstructure. Of greater importance than worldly pursuits to these builders are certain values of the spirit.
But what pursuits of the spirit do a mosque, or a church, or a synagogue represent and encourage? Religious buildings—whether cathedrals or minarets—often feature architecture that reaches for the sky. But everyone knows that the heavens are cold and lifeless. And "reaching for new heights" would be a fitting metaphor to describe religious devotion were it not for the fact that so many religions encourage us to grovel, to submit, to lay down our spirits for the service of a higher power.
What is the human spirit, in the end? Our spirit, if it is anything, is our "glassy essence," what distinguishes us from all other living beings: our rational mind. But the reasoning mind is precisely what religious faith bids us to ignore or abandon. There are still those religious thinkers (mostly obscure figures in the West) who think that God's existence might be proved rationally. But this is not the attitude that motivates the masses or their religious leaders to build monuments to an all-powerful, unseen deity, to which all of their worldly pursuits must be subordinate.
Many have noted the disparity between mankind’s technological and moral progress. Often the example is the invention of advanced weaponry which is subsequently used to slaughter masses of people. But if morality pertains to human flourishing on Earth, and if human reasoning is what enables that flourishing, then war is not the only example of this disparity. The contradictions of the Burj Dubai illustrate it, as well.
Labels: Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Don't Say Grace, Say Justice
The religious tradition of saying grace before meals becomes especially popular around the holidays, when we all are reminded of how fortunate we are to have an abundance of life-sustaining goods and services at our disposal. But there is a grave injustice involved in this tradition. It is the injustice of thanking an alleged God for the productive accomplishments of actual men.
Where do the ideas, principles, constitutions, governments, and laws that protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness come from? What is the source of the meals, medicines, homes, automobiles, and fighter jets that keep us alive and enable us to flourish? Who is responsible for our freedom, prosperity, and well-being?
Is freedom a gift from God? It is not. Freedom, the absence of physical coercion, is a political condition resulting from the rational, principled thought and action of men—men such as Aristotle, John Locke, the Founding Fathers, Frederick Douglass, and American soldiers.
Did God make the ambrosia that melts in your mouth, or the asthma medicine that keeps your child alive, or the plush recliner in which you relax, or the big-screen TV on which you watch your favorite show? Did God create the jetliners that bring friends and family from afar, or the stealth bombers that keep the barbarians at bay, or the music that warms your heart and fuels your soul?
Since God is responsible for none of the goods on which human life and happiness depend, why thank him for any such goods? More to the point: Why not thank those who actually are responsible for them? What would a just man do?
Justice is the virtue of judging people rationally—according to what they say, do, and produce—and treating them accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves. If someone spends the day preparing a wonderful meal, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for doing so. If someone provides his family with a warm, safe, comfortable home, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for providing it. If a policeman or fireman or doctor saves someone’s life, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked. If a loving spouse or child or parent or friend provides you with great joy, justice demands that he, not God, be acknowledged accordingly. If a philosopher discovers the principles on which freedom depends—and if others put those principles into practice—justice demands that they, not God, be given credit.
To say grace is to give credit where none is due—and, worse, it is to withhold credit where it is due. To say grace is to commit an act of injustice.
Rational, productive people—whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself—are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend. This holiday season—and from now on—don’t say grace; say justice. Thank or acknowledge the people who actually provide the goods. Some of them may be sitting right there at the table with you. And if you find yourself at a table where people insist on saying grace, politely insist on saying justice when they’re through. It’s the right thing to do.
Labels: Business and Economics, Foreign Policy and War, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology, The Arts
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Audio Article: 'Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet'
We have posted an MP3 audio version of Raymond C. Niles’s timely article “Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet.” This audio article is accessible for free and can be played directly on our website or downloaded to your MP3 player. This is the first of many audio articles to come. Over the next few weeks, we will be posting audio versions of several articles from past issues, and we are considering the possibility of offering audio versions of all future TOS articles.
I hope you enjoy this first one. Let us know what you think.
Labels: Announcements, Business and Economics, Science and Technology
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Net Neutrality Means an Unfree, Slow, and 'Stupid' Internet
The chairman of the FCC recently called for applying “net neutrality” to the wireless spectrum. Such a measure would dramatically extend the reach of proposed “net neutrality” rules, which were originally slated to govern the delivery of Internet content via wire—cable and DSL lines—but not via wireless signals. The expanded rules would govern the delivery of Internet content to cell phones, iPhones, Kindles, and other wireless devices. The advocates of net neutrality claim they are seeking to preserve a “free” and “open” Internet and to prohibit the “unfair” policies of Internet service providers that favor some content over others. According to them, to preserve this openness and freedom, the FCC must be granted vastly greater powers to coercively determine the business practices of Internet service providers.
That claim, however, is a sham.
An “open” and “free” Internet cannot be achieved by means of further FCC regulations. Extending FCC controls to the wireless spectrum would not “open” anything or free anyone; rather it would further violate the rights of Americans to produce and trade according to their own judgment and thus thwart this vital new realm of life-serving technology. It would unleash a torrent of government control over every aspect of the Internet, granting the government power to dictate how content is to be delivered and at what price, making it less profitable for Internet service providers to invest in costly infrastructure, and thereby quashing their incentive to innovate.
To the extent that “net neutrality” is implemented, the result will be a slower, less robust Internet—a “stupid” Internet, as one of the chief advocates of this pernicious idea aptly describes it. For an elaboration on how “net neutrality” violates the rights of Internet service providers and users alike, and why it is a bad idea for the wired Internet and by implication the wireless spectrum, read my article “Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet.”
Labels: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law, Science and Technology
Thursday, October 01, 2009
The Fall issue of TOS has been Posted and Mailed
The print edition of the Fall issue has been mailed, and the online version has been posted to our website. (Due to production difficulties, the print edition was mailed a few days late. I apologize for the delay.) The contents of the Fall issue are:
ARTICLES
Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda
by John David LewisAmerica’s Self-Crippled Foreign Policy: An Interview with Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein
An Unwinnable War?
by Elan JournoThe Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty
by Craig BiddleThe Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here
by Michael DahlenHow the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability
by Paul HsiehHow Morality is Grounded in Reality
by Craig BiddleBOOKS REVIEWED
Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz
Reviewed by Dina Schein FedermanThe Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder
Reviewed by Daniel WahlFred Astaire by Joseph Epstein
Reviewed by Scott HolleranThe Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants by Jane S. Smith
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl
If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, there is no time like now. You can subscribe online or by calling 800-423-6151.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Foreign Policy and War, Healthcare, History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology
Monday, September 14, 2009
The Fall Issue of TOS
The print edition of the Fall issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning September 20. For promotional purposes, we are making both John David Lewis’s article “Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda” and Paul Hsieh’s article “How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability” available on our website early and for free.
The contents of the Fall issue are:
ARTICLES
Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda
by John David LewisAmerica’s Self-Crippled Foreign Policy: An Interview with Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein
An Unwinnable War?
by Elan JournoThe Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty
by Craig BiddleThe Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here
by Michael DahlenHow the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability
by Paul HsiehHow Morality is Grounded in Reality
by Craig BiddleBOOKS REVIEWED
Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz
Reviewed by Dina Schein FedermanThe Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder
Reviewed by Daniel WahlFred Astaire by Joseph Epstein
Reviewed by Scott HolleranThe Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants by Jane S. Smith
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl
If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, why not subscribe today? You can do so online or by calling 800-423-6151.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Foreign Policy and War, Healthcare, History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Summer Issue of The Objective Standard
The print edition of the Summer issue has been mailed, and the online version has been posted to our website. The contents are:
Justice Holmes and the Empty Constitution by Thomas A. Bowden
Energy at the Speed of Thought: The Original Alternative Energy Market by Alex Epstein
A Brief History of U.S. Farm Policy and the Need for Free-Market Agriculture by Monica Hughes
The Is–Ought Gap: Subjectivism’s Technical Retreat by Craig Biddle
BOOKS REVIEWED
Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism, by George A. Akerlof and Robert J. Shiller (reviewed by Eric Daniels)Life Without Lawyers: Liberating Americans From Too Much Law, by Philip K. Howard (reviewed by David Littel)
Fooling Some of the People All the Time Updated and Revised: A Long Short Story, by David Einhorn (reviewed by Daniel Wahl)
The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger, by Marc Levinson (reviewed by Heike Larson)
Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity, by David Allen (reviewed by Amy Peikoff)
The Objective Standard makes for great summer reading! How about giving gift subscriptions to the active-minded students and graduates in your reach? One mind at a time—that is how to fight for the future.
Enjoy the issue, and have a wonderful summer!
Labels: Announcements, Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Psychology, Science and Technology
Friday, April 17, 2009
On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day
Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day.
Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.
According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may. Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.
Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature into the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.
Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.
The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment”) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature. And so on.
In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.
Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, fruits, and vegetables. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.
It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?
There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.
On April 22, make clear where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.
Labels: Environmentalism, Events, Philosophy, Science and Technology
Thursday, April 02, 2009
A Critique of Global Warming Science and Policy: A panel discussion at UCLA
What: A panel discussion challenging widely accepted views on global warming science and policy, followed by a Q&A
Who: Keith Lockitch, fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and Willie Soon, geoscientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Where: UCLA Campus, Ackerman Grand Ballroom, Los Angeles, California
When: Monday, April 13, 2009, at 7 p.m.
Admission: FREE. The public and media are invited.
Sponsored by: LOGIC, the UCLA Objectivist Club
More information: Visit http://www.clublogic.org/ or e-mail info@ClubLogic.org
Description: It is now widely believed that man-made greenhouse gases are causing an unnatural warming of the earth that will have devastating consequences for human life. Environmentalists and politicians are pressing for severe restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions aimed at preventing global warming. But are these beliefs and policies justified? What does the scientific evidence actually support regarding the causes of climate variability and the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases? Are the predictions of catastrophic changes supported by scientific fact? Is government economic intervention aimed at severely restricting greenhouse gases an appropriate policy response? Panelists will address these critical issues in a lively discussion.
Bio: Dr. Keith Lockitch has a PhD in physics from University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and is a resident fellow focusing on science and environmentalism at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He lectures publicly on these topics, and his writings have appeared in such publications as the Washington Times and USA Today magazine. Dr. Lockitch is also a professor in the Objectivist Academic Center, where he teaches undergraduate writing and a graduate course on the history of physics. Before joining the Ayn Rand Institute in 2003, Dr. Lockitch was a postdoctoral researcher in physics at the University of Illinois and at Pennsylvania State University.
Bio: Dr. Willie Soon is an astrophysicist and a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He is also the chief science adviser of the Science and Public Policy Institute (based in Washington, D.C.). He writes and lectures on issues related to the sun, other stars, the Earth as well as general science topics in astronomy and physics. He is the author of The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection published March 2004. (All views expressed are strictly of his own and do not reflect upon any other persons or institutions.)
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Environmentalism, Events, Science and Technology
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Real Meaning of Earth Hour by Keith Lockitch
On Saturday, March 28, cities around the world will turn off their lights to observe “Earth Hour.” Iconic landmarks from the Sydney Opera House to Manhattan’s skyscrapers will be darkened to encourage reduced energy use and signal a commitment to fighting climate change.
While a one-hour blackout will admittedly have little effect on carbon emissions, what matters, organizers say, is the event’s symbolic meaning. That’s true, but not in the way organizers intend.
We hear constantly that the debate is over on climate change—that man-made greenhouse gases are indisputably causing a planetary emergency. But there is ample scientific evidence to reject the claims of climate catastrophe. And what’s never mentioned? The fact that reducing greenhouse gases to the degree sought by climate activists would, itself, cause significant harm.
Politicians and environmentalists, including those behind Earth Hour, are not calling on people just to change a few light bulbs, they are calling for a truly massive reduction in carbon emissions—as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels. Because our energy is overwhelmingly carbon-based (fossil fuels provide more than 80 percent of world energy), and because the claims of abundant “green energy” from breezes and sunbeams are a myth—this necessarily means a massive reduction in our energy use.
People don’t have a clear view of what this would mean in practice. We, in the industrialized world, take our abundant energy for granted and don’t consider just how much we benefit from its use in every minute of every day. Driving our cars to work and school, sitting in our lighted, heated homes and offices, powering our computers and countless other labor-saving appliances, we count on the indispensable values that industrial energy makes possible: hospitals and grocery stores, factories and farms, international travel and global telecommunications. It is hard for us to project the degree of sacrifice and harm that proposed climate policies would force upon us.
This blindness to the vital importance of energy is precisely what Earth Hour exploits. It sends the comforting-but-false message: Cutting off fossil fuels would be easy and even fun! People spend the hour stargazing and holding torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offer special candle-lit dinners. Earth Hour makes the renunciation of energy seem like a big party.
Participants spend an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away. This bears no relation whatsoever to what life would actually be like under the sort of draconian carbon-reduction policies that climate activists are demanding: punishing carbon taxes, severe emissions caps, outright bans on the construction of power plants.
Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month, without any form of fossil fuel energy? Try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible.
Those who claim that we must cut off our carbon emissions to prevent an alleged global catastrophe need to learn the indisputable fact that cutting off our carbon emissions would be a global catastrophe. What we really need is greater awareness of just how indispensable carbon-based energy is to human life (including, of course, to our ability to cope with any changes in the climate).
It is true that the importance of Earth Hour is its symbolic meaning. But that meaning is the opposite of the one intended. The lights of our cities and monuments are a symbol of human achievement, of what mankind has accomplished in rising from the cave to the skyscraper. Earth Hour presents the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating those lights being extinguished. Its call for people to renounce energy and to rejoice at darkened skyscrapers makes its real meaning unmistakably clear: Earth Hour symbolizes the renunciation of industrial civilization.
Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on science and environmentalism. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Business and Economics, Environmentalism, Science and Technology
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Rational Science versus Sacrificial Politics
Posted by John David Lewis and Paul Saunders
The Obama administration continues to appoint radical environmentalists who want us to commit industrial suicide on behalf of nature. Meanwhile, top-rank scientists continue to renounce claims of a coming climate disaster.
The latest scientist to voice his conclusions is retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon. As chief of several NASA programs from 1982 to 1994, Theon was responsible for all weather and climate research, and oversaw the work of Dr. James Hansen. Hansen is NASA’s foremost proponent of man-made global warming—and a strong supporter of Al Gore. Hansen has compared coal trains to Nazi death trains, and has lobbied for the prosecution of coal industry executives. Hansen also claims to have been "muzzled" by the Bush administration.
Dr. Theon has repudiated all of this. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009.
Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.
As regards computer software models—the primary source of support for the claims of global warming advocates—Dr. Theon writes: "Climate models are useless."
Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.
Dr. Theon is in good company. A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 names more than 650 international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming fears. This is greater than twelve times as many scientists as the 52 who co-authored the UN reports that American bureaucrats continue to cite. These 650 scientists include: Aerospace engineer, physicist, and NASA Administrator (April 13, 2005 to January 20, 2009) Dr. Michael Griffin; Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman to receive a PhD in meteorology; Geophysicist and former astronaut Dr. Phil Chapman; Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt; Apollo 7 Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham; Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette (formerly with NASA's Plum Brook Reactor); Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist and former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center; Climatologist Dr. John Christy; Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer; and Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility.
In summary, while the vast majority of scientists are going in one direction—repudiating claims of a man-made climate disaster—politicians are going the other direction—embracing such claims and shackling industry on those “grounds.” Why? Why, as the scientific case for man-made global warming collapses, are politicians all the more determined to impose draconian controls on industry?
The answer is morality. Politics is directly dependent upon morality. Politicians who follow a morality of sacrifice will impose laws that enforce that “ideal.” Conversely, those who follow a morality of rational self-interest will act to protect our rights—including our rights to productive action.
The observations, analyses, and conclusions of scientists have never deterred those who are committed to the morality of sacrifice. This latest disparity between science and politics is yet another example of this fact.
Labels: Environmentalism, Individual Rights and Law, Science and Technology
Sunday, December 14, 2008
The FCC's Plan to Censor the Internet
Washington, D.C.—The Federal Communications Commission is preparing to auction off a portion of the airwaves for Internet use. Under the terms of the auction, the winning bidder would be forced to use a quarter of the auctioned spectrum to provide free wireless Internet service to all Americans.
“If you think free Internet access under this plan would be a good thing, think again,” said Don Watkins, a writer for the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “This ‘free’ access comes at the price of giving government unprecedented control over the Internet.
“Since no ISP can compete with free, omnipresent Internet access, this plan means that virtually all online users will be herded into the government-controlled Internet. And as the history of radio and television has shown, once the government guarantees ‘free’ access to a communications medium, it will inevitably exercise control over its content—i.e., censorship.
“In fact, this plan already comes with censorship strings attached; the FCC has declared that this ‘free’ Internet must filter out pornography and other material deemed unsuitable for children. Not only will this prevent vast numbers of Americans from accessing content the government regards as inappropriate, but it will unavoidably lead to massive self-censorship by websites struggling to avoid government sanitization.
“The FCC should auction off these airwaves without preconditions--not use the prospect of ‘free’ wireless access to lure us into accepting an online censorship regime.”
### ### ###
To interview Don Watkins and other Ayn Rand Center experts, please contact:
West Coast: David Holcberg
Irvine, CA
(949) 222-6550, ext. 226
davidh@aynrandcenter.org
East Coast: Kurt Kramer
Washington, DC
(202) 454-1997, ext. 101
kurtk@aynrandcenter.org
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Individual Rights and Law, Science and Technology
Friday, December 05, 2008
The Forthcoming Issue of TOS
The print edition of the Winter issue of The Objective Standard is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning December 20. For promotional purposes, “Capitalism and the Moral High Ground” and “Reason or Faith: The Republican Alternative” are available early and to all.
The contents of the Winter issue are:
From the Editor
Letters & RepliesARTICLES
“Capitalism and the Moral High Ground” by Craig Biddle
“Reason or Faith: The Republican Alternative” by John David Lewis
“Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet” by Raymond C. Niles
“Bubble Boy: Alan Greenspan’s Rejection of Reason and Morality” by Gus Van Horn
“The Assault on Energy Producers” by Brian P. Simpson
“Demystifying Newton: The Force Behind the Genius” by Gena Gorlin
“Errors in Inductive Reasoning” by David HarrimanBOOKS REVIEWED
New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America by Burton Folsom Jr. (reviewed by Eric Daniels)
Better Day Coming: Blacks and Equality, 1890–2000 by Adam Fairclough (reviewed by Gus Van Horn)
If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, you can do so online or by calling 800-423-6151. And the Standard makes a great Christmas gift for your active-minded friends, colleagues, and relatives. Everyone concerned with the future should be reading this journal today.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Environmentalism, Foreign Policy and War, History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Psychology, Science and Technology
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Don't Say Grace, Say Justice
The religious tradition of saying grace before meals becomes especially popular around the holidays, when we all are reminded of how fortunate we are to have an abundance of life-sustaining goods and services at our disposal. But there is a grave injustice involved in this tradition. It is the injustice of thanking an alleged God for the productive accomplishments of actual men.
Where do the ideas, principles, constitutions, governments, and laws that protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness come from? What is the source of the meals, medicines, homes, automobiles, and fighter jets that keep us alive and enable us to flourish? Who is responsible for our freedom, prosperity, and well-being?
Is freedom a gift from God? It is not. Freedom, the absence of physical coercion, is a political condition resulting from the rational, principled thought and action of men—men such as Aristotle, John Locke, the Founding Fathers, Frederick Douglass, and American soldiers.
Did God make the ambrosia that melts in your mouth, or the asthma medicine that keeps your child alive, or the plush recliner in which you relax, or the big-screen TV on which you watch your favorite show? Did God create the jetliners that bring friends and family from afar, or the stealth bombers that keep the barbarians at bay, or the music that warms your heart and fuels your soul?
Since God is responsible for none of the goods on which human life and happiness depend, why thank him for any such goods? More to the point: Why not thank those who actually are responsible for them? What would a just man do?
Justice is the virtue of judging people rationally—according to what they say, do, and produce—and treating them accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves. If someone spends the day preparing a wonderful meal, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for doing so. If someone provides his family with a warm, safe, comfortable home, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for providing it. If a policeman or fireman or doctor saves someone’s life, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked. If a loving spouse or child or parent or friend provides you with great joy, justice demands that he, not God, be acknowledged accordingly. If a philosopher discovers the principles on which freedom depends—and if others put those principles into practice—justice demands that they, not God, be given credit.
To say grace is to give credit where none is due—and, worse, it is to withhold credit where it is due. To say grace is to commit an act of injustice.
Rational, productive people—whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself—are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend. This holiday season—and from now on—don’t say grace; say justice. Thank or acknowledge the people who actually provide the goods. Some of them may be sitting right there at the table with you. And if you find yourself at a table where people insist on saying grace, politely insist on saying justice when they’re through. It’s the right thing to do.
Labels: Business and Economics, Foreign Policy and War, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology, The Arts
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Frontline Heats Up Global Warming Alarmism
Washington, DC—On Tuesday evening, PBS premiered Heat, a Frontline documentary exploring the economics and politics of climate change. After travelling the world interviewing corporate CEOs and political leaders, Frontline correspondent Martin Smith argues that a “huge and concerted push from government” is necessary to prevent a major catastrophe.
But according to Keith Lockitch, fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: “A huge push from government on climate change would be a major catastrophe.
“One thing the documentary shows pretty clearly is the repeated failure of government economic intervention—especially in the form of policies aimed at centrally planning energy production, such as government subsidies for corn ethanol. These have distorted world food markets by diverting billions of taxpayer dollars away from investments that market participants would have freely chosen and into the production of corn for burning up in our gas tanks, with the resulting distortions to world food prices causing food riots and starvation.
“Government policies aimed at severely restricting carbon emissions would inflict a major blow to the economy. Industrial-scale energy is an indispensable, life-saving value, and currently there is simply no practical way to produce abundant carbon-free energy. Nuclear power could generate substantial amounts of electricity, but environmentalists have consistently fought it tooth and nail. And even nuclear can’t fuel the internal combustion engines of the world’s 800 million oil-powered vehicles.
“The more important point is that there is no need whatsoever to restrict carbon emissions,” said Lockitch. “The scientific jury is still out on the extent of man’s contribution to global warming. But even if we are causing large-scale changes to the climate--this is not a planetary emergency. If individuals on the free market can smoothly absorb the major transitions that occurred in moving from the horse and buggy to the automobile or the rapid population growth that accompanied the Industrial Revolution, they can adapt to large-scale climate change. The freer we are from the burdens of government intervention, the more we can continue to produce wealth, economic growth, and the means of adapting to whatever changes occur, if any.
“The irony is that the very policies that people are pushing for in the name of fighting global warming—such as a massive expansion of government control over the production and consumption of energy—would severely reduce our ability to cope with nature. This would inflict upon us an economic catastrophe far worse than anything the climate could deliver.
“The real threat we face is not the possibility of large-scale changes to the climate, but the much more dangerous possibility of drastic government policies enacted in the name of climate change.”
### ### ###
Dr. Lockitch has a PhD in Physics from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. His writings have appeared in publications such as the Orange County Register and the San Francisco Chronicle.
Dr. Keith Lockitch is available for interviews. To book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson:
E-mail: media@AynRandCenter.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Environmentalism, Individual Rights and Law, Science and Technology
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Faith-based Politics costs Colorado Republicans by Ari Armstrong
Colorado is known for its Western values of independence and economic liberty. So why do Republicans, the supposed champions of those values, keep getting trounced?
Republicans can blame wealthy Democratic donors, but in large part Republicans have beaten themselves by pushing a faith-based agenda of banning abortion and stem-cell research, discriminating against homosexuals, and directing welfare dollars to religious groups. They have subverted the law to religious doctrine and weakened the wall between church and state.
Republicans also have alienated freedom-minded independents and Republicans. Polls released by Pew show most Americans, and half of conservatives, now oppose church involvement in politics. As Ryan Sager shows in his review of 2005 Pew data, the Interior West holds a "live and let live" philosophy, with 53 percent of residents saying homosexuality "should be accepted by society" and 59 percent saying "the government is getting too involved in the issue of morality."
Yet the GOP panders to its evangelical base at the expense of political victory.
This year, Republicans passed a resolution at their state convention calling for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Eighteen Republican candidates signed the Colorado Right to Life survey, saying they want to ban abortion as the will of God and outlaw stem-cell medical research.
The same candidates also endorsed Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. This would lay the ground to ban all abortion except perhaps to save the mother's life, ban the birth control pill and other forms of contraception that may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, and ban most fertility treatments. Women would be forced to bring a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks.
True, some of these candidates, such as Congressman Doug Lamborn and congressional candidate Mike Coffman, live in safe districts for Republicans. But Libby Szabo, a candidate for state senate in District 19, does not. Her opponents have hammered her over her answers to the survey, making sure to link her views to the GOP.
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, the incumbent in a Republican district, has managed to fall behind challenger Betsy Markey in some polls. Musgrave wants to outlaw abortion, and she is most well known for sponsoring a constitutional gay marriage ban.
Republican Bob Schaffer is trailing Mark Udall in the polls in the U.S. Senate race in part because of Schaffer's faith-based politics. Udall has written, "I fully support the continued separation of church and state in this country." He opposes bans on abortion and stem-cell research. Schaffer, evoking God's will, said abortion is "always wrong."
Republicans should have learned their lesson when they lost the governership to the Democrats in 2006, when Bob Beauprez touted his faith-based politics and selected a running mate of the same cloth, Janet Rowland. Like Beauprez, Rowland wanted to outlaw abortion and maintain faith-based welfare.
Yet the GOP continues to actively push its anti-abortion agenda. A recent flyer "Paid for by Colorado Republican Committee" urged recipients to vote for a presidential candidate who opposes abortion and who will appoint Supreme Court justices to outlaw it.
But some who are pro-choice across the board are fighting back. Diana Hsieh founded the Coalition for Secular Government, which issued a paper that she and I wrote titled, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life." Diana's husband Paul wrote to Dick Wadhams, head of the state GOP, "Although I'm pro-free market, pro-strong national defense, and pro- gun, the position that the CO GOP has taken against abortion is a clear breach of the principle of separation of church and state." Doug Krening wrote to Republican officials, "I have been a Republican for my entire voting life, but cannot endorse the GOP currently because of it's explicit endorsement of religion in government."
On September 11, Amanda Mountjoy, chair of the Colorado Republican Majority for Choice, hosted a banquet with 240 participants to oppose Amendment 48. Former Senator Hank Brown told the crowd, "At the point that we give up supporting and defending individual freedom and choice, we give up the very core of this great party."
Colorado Republicans have two options. They can respect the separation of church and state and defend individual freedom and choice, or they can continue to lose and deserve to do so.
Ari Armstrong is a writer for the Coalition for Secular Government and the editor of FreeColorado.com.
Copyright © 2008 Coalition for Secular Government. All rights reserved.
Labels: Individual Rights and Law, Religion, Science and Technology
CSG on Colorado's Amendment 48
Announcing the Coalition for Secular Government's new web site on Colorado's Amendment 48:
Amendment 48 is the ballot measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights in the Colorado constitution. (Read the full text.) If passed and implemented, it would pose a grave threat to the life, liberty, health, and happiness of the women and men of Colorado.
- Amendment 48 would make abortion first-degree murder, except perhaps to save the woman's life. First-degree murder is defined in Colorado law as deliberately causing the death of a "person," a crime punished by life in prison or the death penalty. So women and their doctors would be punished with the severest possible penalty under law for terminating a pregnancy—even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.
- Amendment 48 would ban any form of birth control that might sometimes prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus—including the birth control pill, morning-after pill, and IUD. The result would be many more unintended pregnancies and unwanted children in Colorado.
- Amendment 48 would ban in vitro fertilization because the process usually creates more fertilized eggs than can be safely implanted in the womb. So every year, hundreds of Colorado couples would be denied the joy of a child of their own.
Amendment 48 would have severe legal consequences for Colorado. Men and women would be legally bound to sacrifice themselves for the sake of a zygote—even before it implants in the womb, even before it develops any recognizable human form, even before it has any capacity for awareness. The people of Colorado would be forced to sacrifice themselves based on the faith-based fiction that zygote is the equal of a born baby.
The common claim that "life begins at conception" cannot justify Amendment 48. The fact that something is human and alive does not make it a person.
Every cell in our body is both human and alive, yet we don't worry about giving blood for testing or scraping off a few skin cells in a fall. A fertilized egg is distinctive because, in addition to being alive and human, it might develop into a born baby given the right conditions. What supporters of Amendment 48 cannot show, however, is that a potential baby has the moral status of an actual baby. The difference between them is enormous.
An embryo or fetus is wholly dependent on the woman for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as an extension of her body, contained within and dependent on her for its survival. It is only a potential person, not an actual person. That situation changes radically at birth. The newborn baby exists as a distinct organism, separate from his mother. Although still very needy, he lives his own life. He is a person—and individual. His life must be protected as a matter of right.
Consequently, when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy she does not violate the rights of any person. Instead, she is exercising her own rights over her own body—likely in pursuit of her own health, well-being, and happiness. Amendment 48 would destroy those rights in Colorado.
For a detailed analysis of Amendment 48, download and read the Coalition for Secular Government's issue paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh:
"Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person"
Amendment 48 is based on sectarian religious dogma, not objective science or philosophy. It is a blatant attempt to impose theocracy in Colorado. Please vote NO on 48!
For more information, visit: http://ColoradoVoteNo48.com
—Diana Hsieh
Coalition for Secular Government
The Coalition for Secular Government advocates government solely based on secular principles of individual rights. The protection of a person's basic rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness—including freedom of religion and conscience—requires a strict separation of church and state.
Labels: Announcements, Individual Rights and Law, Religion, Science and Technology
Monday, October 06, 2008
Columbus Day Celebrates Western Civilization by Thomas A. Bowden
On October 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus discovered the New World, opening a sea route to vast uncharted territories that awaited the spread of Western civilization. Centuries later, the ensuing cultural migration culminated in the birth and explosive growth of the greatest nation in history: the United States of America.
It is fitting that we have set aside a day to honor the Great Explorer. On one level, Columbus Day honors the man himself for his many virtues. Columbus was a man of independent mind, who steadfastly pursued his bold plan for a westward voyage to the Indies despite powerful opposition—a man of courage, who set sail upon a trackless ocean with no assurance that he would ever reach land—a man of pride, who sought recognition and reward for his achievements.
We need not evade or excuse Columbus’s flaws—his religious zealotry, his enslavement and oppression of natives—to recognize that he made history by finding new territory for a civilization that would soon show mankind how to overcome the age-old scourges of slavery, war, and forced religious conversion.
Thus, the deeper meaning of Columbus Day is to celebrate the rational core of Western civilization, which flourished in the New World like a pot-bound plant liberated from its confining shell, demonstrating to the world what greatness is possible to man at his best.
On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose philosophers and mathematicians, men such as Aristotle, Archimedes, and Euclid, displaced otherworldly mysticism by discovering the laws of logic and mathematical relationships, demonstrating to mankind that reality is a single realm accessible to human understanding.
On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose scientists, men such as Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein, banished primitive superstitions by discovering natural laws through the scientific method, demonstrating to mankind that the universe is both knowable and predictable.
On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose political geniuses, men such as John Locke and the Founding Fathers, defined the principles by which bloody tribal warfare, religious strife, and, ultimately, slavery could be eradicated by constitutional republics devoted to protecting life, liberty, property, and the selfish pursuit of individual happiness.
On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose entrepreneurs, men such as Rockefeller, Ford, and Gates, transformed an inhospitable wilderness populated by frightened savages into a wealthy nation of self-confident producers served by highways, power plants, computers, and thousands of other life-enhancing products.
On Columbus Day, in sum, we celebrate Western civilization as history’s greatest cultural achievement. What better reason could there be for a holiday?
Mr. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights and is the author of The Enemies of Christopher Columbus. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Science and Technology
Saturday, September 20, 2008
A Critique of Global Warming Science and Policy
What: A panel discussion challenging widely accepted views on global warming science and policy, followed by a Q & A.
Who: Keith Lockitch, Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights and Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Where: Taper Hall of Humanities (THH) Room 102
When: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 7:00 pm
For maps and directions, click here: http://www.usc.edu/about/visit/upc/driving_directions/
Description: It is now widely believed that man-made greenhouse gases are causing an unnatural warming of the earth that will have devastating consequences for human life. Environmentalists and politicians are pressing for severe restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions aimed at preventing global warming. But are these beliefs and policies justified? What does the scientific evidence actually support regarding the causes of climate variability and the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases? Are the predictions of catastrophic changes supported by scientific fact? Is government economic intervention aimed at severely restricting greenhouse gases an appropriate policy response? Panelists will address these critical issues in a lively discussion.
Bios:
Keith Lockitch is a fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, specializing in science and environmental policy. His writings have appeared in publications such as the Orange County Register, San Francisco Chronicle, Australia’s Herald Sun and Canberra Times, and USA Today magazine. Dr. Lockitch has been a frequent guest on radio shows such as The Thom Hartmann Program on Air America Radio. He is also a contributing writer for The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of culture and politics.
Dr. Lockitch teaches for the Ayn Rand Institute’s Objectivist Academic Center; he teaches writing for the Center’s undergraduate program and a history of physics course for its graduate program. He holds a PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee and has conducted postdoctoral research in relativistic astrophysics at the University of Illinois and at Pennsylvania State University.
Willie Soon is both an astrophysicist and a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Dr. Soon is the receiving editor in the area of solar and stellar physics for New Astronomy. He is also the chief science adviser of the Science and Public Policy Institute (based in Washington DC). He writes and lectures both professionally and publicly on important issues related to the Sun, other stars, the Earth as well as general science topics in astronomy and physics. He is the author of The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection, published March 2004. He also co-authored (with P. N. Okeke) the textbook Introduction to Astronomy that is used (now taught at the University of Nigeria) for students with little or no access to telescopes. Dr. Soon’s honors include a 1989 IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society Graduate Scholastic Award and a Rockwell Dennis Hunt Scholastic Award from the University of Southern California for “the most representative PhD research thesis” of 1991. In 2003 he was invited to testify in the United States Senate and was later recognized, with a monetary award, for “detailed scholarship on biogeological and climatic change over the past 1000 years” by the Smithsonian Institution. In June 2004 he was presented with the Petr Beckmann Award of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness for “courage and achievement in defense of scientific truth and freedom.”
All views expressed are strictly his own and do not reflect upon any other person(s) or institutions.
Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Environmentalism, Events, Science and Technology
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Expelled Gets an F
Irvine, CA—Today Ben Stein's anti-evolution documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opens in theaters. The film claims that advocates of "intelligent design"—the view that life is so complex it must be the product of a "higher intelligence"—are the persecuted victims of a "scientific establishment" dogmatically committed to evolution.
"The premise of Expelled is that proponents of 'intelligent design' have been shunned, denied tenure, and even fired because of a conspiracy to quash the scientific evidence supporting their theory," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "But the truth is: there is no evidence supporting their theory. Intelligent design is completely devoid of any positive scientific content, and consists of nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on evolution. To the extent intelligent design advocates are facing obstacles in academia it is because they are not doing real science: they haven't been 'expelled' they have flunked out of the scientific community, just as a faith healer would flunk out of medical school.
"Observe that intelligent design advocates have pumped millions into publicity-seeking, rather than appealing to scientists with facts and logical arguments. They have spent more time at Christian 'apologetics seminars' than scientific conferences, and have attempted to use the courts to force schools to teach their ideas. Now they are hoping to dupe the movie-going public with a film that misrepresents Darwin's theory and the array of facts that support it—just as the makers of Expelled misrepresented the nature of the film in order to bamboozle respected evolutionary scientists into participating in it.
"Intelligent design advocates will do anything to advance their views—except science.
"The reason for that is simple: doing science has never been their goal. Their goal is to make biblical creationism appear scientific in order to skirt the constitutional ban on religion in public schools. Contrary to the film's claims, the real dogmatists are not the defenders of Darwin, but the religiously motivated advocates of intelligent design."
### ### ###
Dr. Lockitch has a PhD in Physics from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). He writes and edits for ARI and is a professor in the Objectivist Academic Center, where he teaches undergraduate writing and a graduate course on the history of physics. His writings have appeared in publications such as the Orange County Register and the San Francisco Chronicle.
Dr. Keith Lockitch is available for interviews. To book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson: 800-365-6552 ext. 213 (office) 949-838-5137 (cell) larryb@aynrand.org
For more information on Objectivism's unique point of view, go to ARI's Web site. Founded in 1985, the Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Religion, Science and Technology, The Arts
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
The Real Meaning of Earth Hour by Keith Lockitch
On the evening of Saturday, March 29, cities around the world turned off their lights for one hour to "raise" awareness about global warming. In observation of Earth Hour, iconic landmarks such as the Sears Tower and the Sydney Opera House went dark, while participating individuals turned off residential lights.
The purpose of Earth Hour, according to its organizers, who plan to make it an annual event, is to encourage people to think about how they can reduce their energy consumption. While the event itself—one hour with the lights off—admittedly had little effect on carbon emissions, what matters, say the organizers, is the symbolic meaning of the event. So what is the meaning of Earth Hour?
We hear constantly that the debate is over on climate change--that it is now an indisputable fact that human carbon emissions are causing a planetary emergency. Earth Hour is intended to showcase public concern about global warming and to inspire people to take practical actions to reduce their "carbon footprints."
But it is far from indisputable that we face any sort of planetary crisis. Predictions of catastrophic global warming have long been disputed, and continue to be disputed, by numerous serious scientists skeptical of the global warming "consensus."
Furthermore, what is never mentioned is the fact that reducing greenhouse gases to the degree sought by global warming activists would, itself, cause great harm.
Politicians and environmentalists, including those behind Earth Hour, are not calling on people just to change a few light bulbs, they are calling for a truly massive reduction in carbon emissions—as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels. Because our energy is overwhelmingly carbon-based (in 2005, fossil fuels made up 86 percent of world energy production), this necessarily means a massive reduction in our energy consumption.
People don't have a clear sense of what this would mean in practice. We, in the industrialized world, take our abundant energy for granted and don't consider just how much we benefit from its use in every minute of our every day. We drive our cars to work and school, we sit in our lighted, heated homes and offices, powering our computers and countless other labor-saving appliances, and we count on the indispensable values that industrial energy makes possible: hospitals and grocery stores, factories and farms, international travel and global telecommunications. It is hard for us to project the degree of sacrifice and harm that global-warming policies would force upon us.
This blindness to the vital importance of energy is precisely what Earth Hour exploits. It sends the comforting-but-false message: Cutting off our use of fossil fuels would be easy and even fun! People spent the hour star-gazing and holding torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offered special candle-lit dinners. Earth Hour makes the renunciation of energy seem like a big party.
The participants of Earth Hour spent an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, but all the while they remained safe in the knowledge that the comforts and life-saving benefits of industrial civilization were just a light switch away. This bears no relation whatsoever to what our lives would actually be like under the sort of draconian carbon-reduction policies that global-warming activists are demanding: punishing carbon taxes, severe emissions caps, outright bans on the construction of power plants.
What is really needed is greater awareness of just how indispensable carbon-based energy is to human life. Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month, without any form of fossil fuel energy? Let those who claim that we need to stop emitting carbon dioxide try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible. Those who claim that we must cut off our carbon emissions to prevent an alleged global catastrophe need to learn the indisputable fact that cutting off our carbon emissions would be a global catastrophe.
It is true that the real importance of Earth Hour is its symbolic meaning. But that meaning is the opposite of the one intended. The lights of our cities and monuments are a symbol of human achievement, of what mankind has accomplished in rising from the cave to the skyscraper. Earth Hour presents the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating those lights going out. Its call for people to abandon their use of energy and to rejoice at the sight of skyscrapers going dark makes its real meaning unmistakably clear: what Earth Hour represents is the renunciation of industrial civilization.
Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on science and environmentalism. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Business and Economics, Environmentalism, Science and Technology
Blog Feed
Click the button below to subscribe to our blog's feed.
Get the Feed
Subscribe to the journal for people of reason.
Topics
- Announcements
- Ayn Rand and Objectivism
- Business and Economics
- Education
- Environmentalism
- Events
- Foreign Policy and War
- Healthcare
- History
- Individual Rights and Law
- Philosophy
- Psychology
- Religion
- Science and Technology
- The Arts
Blog Archive
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
Advertisement
Advertisement
